Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society?

But there ARE numerous federal, state and local laws restricting the sale, purchase, possession and use of firearms. The NRA (admittedly not an objective source) claims that there are 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. The assault weapons ban was flawed for a lot of reasons, but it limited capacity of new magazines to 10 rounds and prohibited "assault weapons" (which, regrettably, it defined largely by appearance rather than mechanism). An improved law along those lines would probably get a lot of support. The Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms. But unless you are prepared to argue that no civilians should ever possess firearms, the fact is that there will be firearms in our society, and sometimes they will be misused and abused, just like cars, just like alcohol, just like cold medication. And responsible, law-abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves against those who would do them harm.

It gets mentioned on occasion, but never seems to "stick" in the anti-gun mindset, but some of us are already subject to pretty tough gun control legislation.

And some of us aren't.

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.

__________________When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni

Oh I already addressed that part in the bottom of my post. Training would just about cut down on all of this. Also if the school implemented, proper lockdown drills and students laying on the floor, crossfire would be negligible.

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.

And how does your crime rate compare to those areas with a much more restrictive environment, Chicago for example?

The Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms.

And yet Zeggman is apparently under the impression that "requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry" (not to own, just to carry) would violate the Constitution, which is what I was responding to with my specific question.

__________________When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.

The killings occurred in CT which has similar laws to MA. How is Alabama doing wrt spree killings at schools?

Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used to kill people.

Glad I could straighten out your confusion.

Confusing vehicles with weapons seems to be a problem for some, I wonder if someone who suffers from such a cognitive problem should be allowed to own a gun.

Guns are used as paperweights, to provide food, and to protect settlers from wild beasts and marauding gangs.

If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them.

I wonder if someone who suffers from such callousness should be allowed to own a car.

__________________Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

So on Friday, when my sons came home from school, the subject of the school shooting was broached. We talked about the shooting a bit and we talked about their fears (of which they seemed to have very few). Then I asked "what would be a good way to deal with this issue?" My oldest said "they should have an exterior exit door on every classroom". That got me thinking, why do they keep the kids indoors? Why do they make them huddle in a classroom? Why not gtfo of there? So they can keep track of them all? The best response to being shot at is to make every effort not to be in front of the shooter, and if you have to be in front of him, be as far away as possible. Teachers should put the kids out of the windows and tell them to run (on the first floor, obviously). In fact, the more directions the kids are running the better. I'd rather my kids take their chances with the non-shooting population at large rather than the crazy shooter in the school.

I'm not certain if this has been addressed or not because I haven't read through all 8 pages, so sorry if it's been talked to death already/

Yes, driving is a privilege which requires a license; owning a car is not. Justin Bieber can buy a car and hire a chauffeur without violating the law.

I'm not a gun owner myself, but if I'm not mistaken a gun owner must still get a hunting license to go hunting. Maybe that's comparable to a driver's license.

If you're not driving on public streets, you still don't need a driver's license. Children on farms can drive tractors (and presumably cars) on private property, even if they're unlicensed. Maybe that's comparable to sport shooting at a private gun range.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Who said anything about a license to carry? You don't need a license to own and use a gun period. Unlike a car.

I've already mentioned hunting licenses. I think there are also restrictions on concealed carry.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society?

It isn't. It says gun ownership is a right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a right. I don't get a license to say things I couldn't otherwise say, or engage in religious practices like bigamy or human sacrifice which are otherwise illegal.

My point was simply that one doesn't license rights. It is my right to own a gun. It is not my right to point it at you and make threats. There are already restrictions defined for this right, but "requiring a license to own a gun" would probably be unconstitutional.

ETA: I just re-read the exchange, and I did say "License to carry" which implies carrying in public. After reflection, I don't think such a license would be unconstitutional, and apologize for my confusion.

Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it.

After he shot three other people, who were lucky to just be wounded, and not killed. And yes, a trained LEO put a stop to it, not a concealed carrier bystander.

Quote:

Should we even compare the two incidents?

I don't know, but I can certainly find you other shootings in Birmingham that resemble your example more, if you like. I simply selected that one because it was both extremely recent and extremely close to me.

Quote:

How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

It might have kept the guns out of the hands of the shooters. The easy availability of both guns and concealed carry permits here in Alabama certainly didn't seem to help any.

Quote:

Do these laws even have an affect?

Well, going by the relative crime and per-capita murder rates in the two cities, it seems that Birmingham is far less safe than Boston for having such lax gun laws.

__________________When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni

Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

Do these laws even have an affect?

This map showing gun massacres has a pretty even distribution across the USA, with some clusters in densely populated areas rather than a specific state. So there is no sign of differences in gun control making a difference to the number of massacres.

So on Friday, when my sons came home from school, the subject of the school shooting was broached. We talked about the shooting a bit and we talked about their fears (of which they seemed to have very few). Then I asked "what would be a good way to deal with this issue?" My oldest said "they should have an exterior exit door on every classroom". That got me thinking, why do they keep the kids indoors? Why do they make them huddle in a classroom? Why not gtfo of there? So they can keep track of them all? The best response to being shot at is to make every effort not to be in front of the shooter, and if you have to be in front of him, be as far away as possible. Teachers should put the kids out of the windows and tell them to run (on the first floor, obviously). In fact, the more directions the kids are running the better. I'd rather my kids take their chances with the non-shooting population at large rather than the crazy shooter in the school.

I'm not certain if this has been addressed or not because I haven't read through all 8 pages, so sorry if it's been talked to death already/

Concern that they would be easier targets while out in the open fleeing the school perhaps, or of deaths and injuries while escaping if panic takes hold. Maybe kids running off and getting lost, running into roads etc. The teacher's instinct is going to be to stay close and try to protect them rather than 'let them run and fend for themselves' even if scattering might be the best option.

After he shot three other people, who were lucky to just be wounded, and not killed. And yes, a trained LEO put a stop to it, not a concealed carrier bystander.

But we can dig up lots of example where a CCW is used beneficially. In just about every gun thread, someone posts about "Armed Citizen", in the NRA publications, which gives examples gleaned from local newspapers every month. I think arguing using examples isn't really helpful.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I don't know, but I can certainly find you other shootings in Birmingham that resemble your example more, if you like. I simply selected that one because it was both extremely recent and extremely close to me.

Argument by anecdote, right?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

It might have kept the guns out of the hands of the shooters. The easy availability of both guns and concealed carry permits here in Alabama certainly didn't seem to help any.

But do they hurt? BenBurch posted a link to CCW's involved in killing (including suicides). I think the total was about 600 in five years.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Well, going by the relative crime and per-capita murder rates in the two cities, it seems that Birmingham is far less safe than Boston for having such lax gun laws.

It may be the tbi, but statistics start causing my eyes to glaze over. Not because I'm not interested AND concerned about actual data, but because the gun debate is littered with the correlation does not equal causation fallacy amongst others.

Don't think that the people who pay for the evidence gathering seem to be agenda driven?

Btw--I shouldn't make light of my tbi, but it does impact my life every day and makes it difficult to be concise and clear, so I self deprecate. I apologize for that upfront, and will try to clear anything up that you wish. I just hope that you realize that I appreciate the oportunity to have the discussion.

Concern that they would be easier targets while out in the open fleeing the school perhaps, or of deaths and injuries while escaping if panic takes hold. Maybe kids running off and getting lost, running into roads etc. The teacher's instinct is going to be to stay close and try to protect them rather than 'let them run and fend for themselves' even if scattering might be the best option.

Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes. My kids are old enough to find their own way home. Younger kids will have a better chance of finding safety outside of the school building than inside of it.

1/ How would this right be "well regulated?"
2/ Who or what is the "Militia?"
3/ "Security of a free state" against whom or what?
4/ Who is/are "the people?"
5/ Does "keep and bear arms" mean store, possess, carry, use or what, and if it includes use, against whom or what, under what circumstances?
6/ What are "arms?"
7/ What would "infringe" this right?

Guns are used as paperweights, to provide food, and to protect settlers from wild beasts and marauding gangs.

If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them.

I wonder if someone who suffers from such callousness should be allowed to own a car.

Since we can get our food at the supermarket and wild beasts and marauding gangs are rather scarce here then you must agree that guns are useless, unless you have dire need of a deadly paperweight.

1/ How would this right be "well regulated?"
2/ Who or what is the "Militia?"
3/ "Security of a free state" against whom or what?
4/ Who is/are "the people?"
5/ Does "keep and bear arms" mean store, possess, carry, use or what, and if it includes use, against whom or what, under what circumstances?
6/ What are "arms?"
7/ What would "infringe" this right?

Discuss.

I think the SCOTUS decision (Heller) and the recent Illinois circuit (7th???) have explored the history and made some decisions wrt your list. We should probably discuss from at least a basic understanding of the law from there.

Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

Do these laws even have an affect?

That's hard to say, but it's fairly easy to look up the murder rates.

In 2010, among US cities with populations of 250000 or more, Boston ranked 23rd with about 11.3 murders per 100000 population.

Alabama's a state, not a city, but Mobile ranked 26th, not far behind Boston, with about 9.8 murders per 100000 population. Birmingham didn't make that list because its population was less than 250000, but its murder rate was 8.9 per 100000.

In 2011, two thirds of Massachusetts's 183 murders were committed by firearm, and the percentage for Alabama was almost exactly the same (65.5%).

Looking only at these numbers, it would be hard to argue that Boston's more restrictive gun laws had much effect on the number of people shot (compared to Mobile or Birmingham).

On the other hand, any serious attempt to find empirical support for correlations between murder rates and gun control would have to look at more than two or three cities and would have to examine many other factors. Serious attempts have been made, by many people, but the results of those studies have been surprisingly equivocal.

Originally Posted by DJW

I think arguing using examples isn't really helpful.

...snip...

It may be the tbi, but statistics start causing my eyes to glaze over.

Sorry.

If both anecdotal and statistical evidence are excluded from the conversation, then what's left? Emotion?

I think the SCOTUS decision (Heller) and the recent Illinois circuit (7th???) have explored the history and made some decisions wrt your list. We should probably discuss from at least a basic understanding of the law from there.

Would that be the same SCOTUS who gave us Bush v Gore and Citizens United? I'd like to remind folks we have a POTUS who will not be appointing RW justices in these remaining 4 years of his term...and looking at the shambles of the Republican Party I could be forgiven for suggesting that they might never get another chance to stack the court.

Before the NRA went from sportsman, hunter, and gun safety promoter to Political Action Comittee in the 70's there were wide disparities in what folks thought the 2nd meant. If looked at in the context of the time in which it was written, there were actual regulated state militias....and no one had yet invented even a rifled barrel.

If both anecdotal and statistical evidence are excluded from the conversation, then what's left? Emotion?

If I hadn't used my own anecdotes without making outrageous claims or apologized for caring but having a hard time understanding statistics (which are frequently being manipulated by the agenda driven), then yeah, emotion would be what is left.

Would that be the same SCOTUS who gave us Bush v Gore and Citizens United? I'd like to remind folks we have a POTUS who will not be appointing RW justices in these remaining 4 years of his term...and looking at the shambles of the Republican Party I could be forgiven for suggesting that they might never get another chance to stack the court.

Before the NRA went from sportsman, hunter, and gun safety promoter to Political Action Comittee in the 70's there were wide disparities in what folks thought the 2nd meant. If looked at in the context of the time in which it was written, there were actual regulated state militias....and no one had yet invented even a rifled barrel.

-z

Your idea then is to wait for President Obama to reset the court so that Heller et al will be overturned such that the 2nd is no longer an individual right.

Is the SCOTUS that decided Bush v Gore the same one that decided Heller and McDonald? Who selected the 7th circuit? Does it matter? Should it matter? The law provides a foundation for any discussion like the one we're having. It has to.

Again, we're left with the fact that we're going to have to amend the 2nd amendment if we're to make radical changes to gun ownership.

Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes.

Huddled kids out in the open, yeah. But huddled kids in a safe room with the police on their way are a lot safer than kids out in an open field making easy targets.

Also, remember that lock downs don't just happen when there's a mass murderer in the school. Most lock downs don't turn into that. So do you drill the kids on 2 strategies (run for your life AND stay in a safe room)? Sounds like a prescription for mass confusion. And do you want administrators having to decide whether to tell the kids to hide or flee? Because if they say "flee" at the wrong time and you have 6 year olds racing off in every direction, that's not going to go well.

If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them.

Without mass motorized transportation civilization as we know it comes to an end.

Without the ability to purchase AR-15s or AK47s you lose the ability to entertain yourself and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's about the extent of it.

Without mass motorized transportation civilization as we know it comes to an end.

Without the ability to purchase AR-15s or AK47s you lose the ability to entertain yourself and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's about the extent of it.

In fairness, lacking a coherent, intellectually honest argument, they need to resort to those bizarre comparisons.

Sorry, back to lurker mode

__________________For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

Per the same 2011 FBI report, the Boston MSA murder rate per 100,000 was 2.8, while the murder rate per 100,000 for Boston itself was 10.14.

Boston is heavily populated by college students. Last I checked, every weekday, Boston's population more than triples during the day. Sometimes the crime in the suburbs (Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, West Roxbury, etc...) is counted, sometimes not. There are a lot of confounding factors in the gun debate. Where has it gotten us?

Don't you feel a bit like a dog chasing its tail when you start looking at the numbers? I know I do.

Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes. My kids are old enough to find their own way home. Younger kids will have a better chance of finding safety outside of the school building than inside of it.

Originally Posted by iknownothing

Huddled kids out in the open, yeah. But huddled kids in a safe room with the police on their way are a lot safer than kids out in an open field making easy targets.

Also, remember that lock downs don't just happen when there's a mass murderer in the school. Most lock downs don't turn into that. So do you drill the kids on 2 strategies (run for your life AND stay in a safe room)? Sounds like a prescription for mass confusion. And do you want administrators having to decide whether to tell the kids to hide or flee? Because if they say "flee" at the wrong time and you have 6 year olds racing off in every direction, that's not going to go well.

You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.

You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.

Bully for you! Thanks for shouting down your remedies from your shining city on the hill.

"What does the evidence say about the theory that liberty and democracy depend on easy access to assault weapons by citizens?"

What follows is a brilliant article on how militias have done nothing to save the USA from any tyranny.

"George Washington’s army won the War of Independence with the aid of imported French weapons and supplies and money and French soldiers fighting on American soil. And his best soldiers tended to be well-trained regulars, many of them immigrant mercenaries who signed up for pay and land. The native farmers tended to drop out of the Continental Line to return to their farms."

"The state militias performed poorly in subsequent American wars, as well. In the Mexican War, undisciplined militias antagonized the Mexican population so much, by rape, plunder and murder, that General Winfield Scott sent them home."

"Neither side in the Civil War depended solely on state militias. Both the U.S. and Confederate governments resorted to a draft."

Then look at how tyrannies have actually formed and how armed citizens have never fought one off.

"Ordinary citizens armed with assault weapons or other arms useful in combat have the least chance of success in the very scenario that is invoked to justify their ownership — the remote prospect of a totalitarian tyranny in America."

"The claim that there is a link between individual ownership of assault weapons and political liberty, in the U.S. or anywhere, is not a legal claim. It is not a claim about values. It is a claim about fact. It is a political science theory. And as a political science theory it is an error — an error with fatal consequences for many American citizens who might be alive today, but for this mistaken idea."

The only way the USA can change its gun culture is to accept it is faulty and to then change it. No amount of tinkering with gun control will make any difference if the faulty culture is still intact.